Suggestion: No points for busted multis

[pancakemix]

Concise description:

• Make it so that anyone who has been busted as having had multiple accounts do not receive points for winning remaining games.

Specifics:
People have always complained about losing points to multis. It's usually an inevitable part of this site's experience, and a negative one at that. Obviously, it's been stated many times that the points lost in a game can't be given back, but that got me thinking. What if we kept the points from transferring altogether? Since "No points for New Recruit deadbeats" is on the to-do list and seems far more complicated than this suggestion, I don't see a reason not to implement this. Again, we can't please everyone, but having everyone displeased is far worse.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Decrease incentive for multi abuse (making lots of multis for the purpose of harassing members, looking at you, *manimal) and repeat multiing
• Keep people from complaining about unjustly lost points.

[lancehoch]

I do not know how much this would take to implement, could be hard because you are targeting only certain games and only if someone wins, but it could also be easy because you are only looking at the active games of a specific user. That being said, I think it is an interesting idea and one of the best presented solutions to the multi problem.

[Simon Viavant]

How about someone just can't log on after they're busted, and then they'll deadbeat? That seems easier.

[blakebowling]

that could make games unfair though, this way they'd at least have a chance of finishing fairly

[pancakemix]

How about someone just can't log on after they're busted, and then they'll deadbeat? That seems easier.

That would just get on people's nerves, which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid with this.

that could make games unfair though, this way they'd at least have a chance of finishing fairly

I'm not sure I'm following you on that. They're getting banned and going away forever, why do they need points?

[blakebowling]

How about someone just can't log on after they're busted, and then they'll deadbeat? That seems easier.

That would just get on people's nerves, which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid with this.

that could make games unfair though, this way they'd at least have a chance of finishing fairly

I'm not sure I'm following you on that. They're getting banned and going away forever, why do they need points?

no, I don't mean to give them points, that was a responce to the deadbeat thing, that way the game isn't unbalanced if a multi deadbeats, so it could finish as it normally would

[pancakemix]

How about someone just can't log on after they're busted, and then they'll deadbeat? That seems easier.

That would just get on people's nerves, which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid with this.

that could make games unfair though, this way they'd at least have a chance of finishing fairly

I'm not sure I'm following you on that. They're getting banned and going away forever, why do they need points?

no, I don't mean to give them points, that was a responce to the deadbeat thing, that way the game isn't unbalanced if a multi deadbeats, so it could finish as it normally would

Sorry, I misinterpreted that, then.

[lt.pie]

What about a thread listing every multi busted in the last 3 months that has won a game. If you lost to that player in the game they won as a multi then send in an e-ticket and get your points back?

[blakebowling]

What about a thread listing every multi busted in the last 3 months that has won a game. If you lost to that player in the game they won as a multi then send in an e-ticket and get your points back?

it would create too much workload on the server, as the points from every game (played with the involved parties) would have to have a score reset.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

dont lose to a multi and you wont lose points

[pancakemix]

dont lose to a multi and you wont lose points

So in a three man game where you get double teamed by the accounts, you should be able to win easily, mirite?

[blakebowling]

dont lose to a multi and you wont lose points

So in a three man game where you get double teamed by the accounts, you should be able to win easily, mirite?

JR only plays 3 man games with one of his own multis Joking

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

dont lose to a multi and you wont lose points

So in a three man game where you get double teamed by the accounts, you should be able to win easily, mirite?

for a 3 player game I will research the 2 players first before I join.

1) do they play alot of games together
2) are they both from an odd country
3) is the game freestyle/speed where they can play together
4) etc

dont just browse through the join game page and select any game available. Now you know how I find alot of cheaters. Its just a matter of paying attention to detail and watching games that are being set up.

[pancakemix]

And if you set the game up yourself, then what?

[zindor]

keep track of everyone's IP addresses , and the same IP adresses on one game = multi = ban forever , it would kill it soon enough

[blakebowling]

keep track of everyone's IP addresses , and the same IP adresses on one game = multi = ban forever , it would kill it soon enough

why ban them forever when lack can charge them $25 to let them come back. excellent marketing is what it is.

[lt.pie]

What about a thread listing every multi busted in the last 3 months that has won a game. If you lost to that player in the game they won as a multi then send in an e-ticket and get your points back?

I like my idea and it doesn't seem all that difficult to implement. Wouldn't mind hearing from someone in authority concerning this instead of players who just like posting.

[cicero]

Let's keep this on topic people.
On topic for this thread is discussion of PancakeMix's suggestion.

Off topic for this thread is discussion of techniques for avoiding multis in the first place. To discuss that I'd suggest a new thread in General Discussion.
Also off topic for this thread are radically different solutions to the "multis winning points" problem. If you have a radically different solution - eg lt.pie's suggestion and Simon Viavant's - then a separate topic here in Suggestions & Bug Reports would be appropriate. Perhaps with a post in this thread to link to it since it may be of interest to readers of this thread.
[Subtle variations to PancakeMix's suggestion are of course on topic and should be posted here.]

Any questions, please do PM me.

Cicero